Article

Journal of Reinforced Plastics

and Composites
30(1) 36–44
Study on mechanical properties and ! The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions:
thermal stability of polypropylene/hemp sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0731684410383067
fiber composites jrp.sagepub.com
Pengfei Niu1, Baoying Liu1, Xiaoming Wei1, Xiaojun Wang2 and
Jie Yang2,3
Abstract
Polypropylene and hemp fiber composites were prepared by melt compounding, followed by injection molding. Maleic
anhydride grafted polypropylene (PP–MAH), maleic anhydride grafted styrene–(ethylene-co-butylene)–styrene copoly-
mer (SEBS–MAH) and maleic anhydride grafted Poly(ethylene octane) (POE–MAH) were used as compatilizer to
improve the fiber/matrix interactions. The composites were characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), dynamic mechan-
ical analysis (DMA), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), mechanical testing and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). The
mechanical properties of polypropylene/hemp fiber composites (fiber loading 30 wt%) at different compatilizer content
were analyzed. In comparison to unmodified system, the incorporation of compatilizer (PP–MAH, SEBS–MAH,
POE–MAH) can significantly enhance the fiber/matrix adhesion which resulted in higher stiffness and mechanical prop-
erties of the composites. The combination of PP–MAH and SEBS–MAH (or POE–MAH) elastomer can be used to
optimize the mechanical properties of the composites. The tensile strength, flexural strength, notched and unnotched
impact strengths of the composite comprising PP–MAH (5 phr) and POE–MAH (6 phr) were 22%, 8%, 24%, and 82%
higher, respectively, than that of unmodified system. Furthermore, the addition of hemp fiber shifted the start of the
degradation process and the maximum decomposition temperatures of the components to higher temperatures.
Keywords
Hemp fiber, polypropylene/hemp fiber composites, mechanical properties, impact strength, thermal stability
Introduction
(silane coupling agents,6 maleated coupling agents,7
Natural fibers, such as hemp, flax, jute, and kenef have etc.). It should be emphasized that the method of using
the advantages of low cost, low weight, reproducibility, maleated coupling agents is different from other treat-
‘eco-friendly’ and bio-degradability compared to glass ment methods in that maleic anhydride grafted polymer
fiber and carbon fiber.1 Therefore, natural fibers rein- is used to modify not only fiber surface but also the
forced polymer composites have raised great attention
and interests both in academia and industry in recent
years. However, the main disadvantages of natural
fibers in composites are the poor compatibility between 1
College of Polymer Science and Engineering, Sichuan University, China.
natural fibers and polymer matrix because of the cellu- 2
Institute of Materials Science and Technology, Sichuan University, China.
lose hydrophilic and polymer hydrophobic nature.2 In 3
State Key Laboratory of Polymer Materials Engineering of China, Sichuan
order to obtain a useful composite, satisfactory interfa- University, China.
cial adhesion between fiber and matrix is necessary.
In numerous research studies, the compatibility Corresponding author:
between composite components was improved either Jie Yang, Institute of Materials Science and Technology, Sichuan University,
Chengdu 610064, China or State Key Laboratory of Polymer
by physical (for example, plasma treatment3) or chemi- Materials Engineering of China, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065,
cal (alkaline treatment,4 acrylic treatment,5 etc.) modifi- China
cation of the cellulose fibers, or by using coupling agents Email: ppsf@scu.edu.cn
Niu et al.
polymer matrix to achieve better interfacial bonding and
mechanical properties in composites. Accordingly,
maleic anhydride grafted polymers are most widely
used to strengthen the interfacial adhesion of the com-
posites containing natural fiber reinforcements.
Unfortunately, natural fiber reinforced composites
exhibit lower impact strengths and smaller elongation
at break.8,9 Additionally, investigation related to the
fiber structure4 and fiber/matrix adhesion10 did not
show any significant improvement in impact strengths
of the composites. To improve impact properties of the
composites, rubber11 or elastomer12 can be used has been
proven. However, it is worth noting that maleic anhy-
dride grafted polypropylene (PP–MAH) compatilized
composite has higher yield strength but lower impact
strength, while the composites containing rubber or elas-
tomer had higher impact strength but unsatisfactory
yield strength compared to unmodified composites.
Among natural fibers used in polymer composites,
hemp is one of the most productive and useful plants
known. It grows quickly in most locations and climates
with only moderate water and fertilizer requirements.13
Hemp has many industrial applications. China can be
considered as one of the most significant resource coun-
try for hemp. However, hemp transformation generates
a high proportion of waste. Specifically, textile industry
employs less than 70 wt% of hemp, producing signifi-
cant amounts of waste. Consequently, development of
recycling processes of such biomass waste is generating
great interest and utilization of it as polymer reinforce-
ment could be an appropriate solution. In addition,
hemp fiber (HF) reinforced polypropylene (PP) compos-
ite exhibits higher tensile strength, Young’s modulus,
and heat distortion temperature.
The objective of this work is focused on the mechan-
ical properties of PP/HF composite. PP–MAH was
employed to enhance the fiber/matrix interfacial adhe-
sion. In order to overcome the impact strength
deficiency, maleic anhydride grafted styrene–(ethylene-
co-butylene)–styrene copolymer and maleic anhydride
grafted poly(ethylene octane) elastomer (designated
as SEBS–MAH and POE–MAH, respectively) were
used as impact modifier as well as compatilizer.
Furthermore, the combination of PP–MAH and
SEBS–MAH (or POE–MAH) was used to improve the
yield strength and impact strength of the composite.
Finally, thermal stability of the composites was also
investigated in this study.
Experimental
Materials
PP (F401) with a melt flow rate (MFR) of 2.2 g/10 min
(230  C/2.16 kg) was supplied by Lanzhou Petrochemical
37
Co. Ltd, China. HFs was obtained from Quartermaster
Equipment Institute of the People’s Liberation Army
General Logistics Department.
PP–MAH (with an MAH content of 1%), SEBS–
MAH (Kraton FG1901X, having 1.5% MAH content)
and POE–MAH (POE Engage 8999, having 0.8%
MAH content) were used in this study.
Preparation of the composites
In the preparation of the composites, PP, HFs, and
maleated grafted polymer (PP–MAH, SEBS–MAH,
and POE–MAH) were first melt-compounding using
the twin-screw extruder (CTE-35). The temperatures
of barrel and the die were maintained at 190  C
during extrusion and the screw speed was 150 rpm.
Subsequently, the extrudate was palletized, dried, and
injection-molding into standard specimens for mechan-
ical properties testing. The injection-molding tempera-
ture and pressure were 200 C and 80 MPa, respectively.
Prior to the preparation of the composites, all the
components were first dried in an oven at 80 C for at
least 24 h.
X-ray diffraction
X-ray patterns were obtained with a Philips X’Pert Pro
Diffractometer using CuKa radiation ( ¼ 0.1546 nm),
voltage of 40 kV and current of 35 mA with 2y
increased in steps of 0.03 . The scans were performed
in the scattering range of 2y ¼ 5.0–45 .
Dynamic mechanical analysis
Dynamic mechanical properties of the composites were
studied using a dynamic mechanical analyzer (DMA
Q800, TA instrument), analyzing in the three-point
bending mode, from 40 C to 50 C under a heating
rate of 5 C/min and at a frequency of 1 Hz. The dimen-
sions of each sample were 30 mm  10 mm  4 mm
(length  width  thickness).
Mechanical testing
Both tensile and flexural tests were performed using
a Universal Testing Machine (AG-10TA, Seiko)
according to ISO 527 and ISO 178, respectively, at
room temperature. The crosshead speed used for
type 1A tensile specimens was 5 mm/min. For flexural
tests (three point bending), specimen dimensions of
80 mm  10 mm  4 mm (length  width  thickness), a
span of 64 mm and a crosshead of 2 mm/min were used.
Notched and unnotched Izod impact strength tests for
type 1A specimens were carried out using a Chengde
Testing Machine (XJU-275) according to ISO 180 at
38 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 30(1)

room temperature. Each value obtained represented the
average of five samples.
Morphological study
Impact fracture surface morphology of the composites
was examined by a JEOL JSM-5900 SEM at an accel-
eration voltage of 20 kV. All specimens were sputtered
with 10 nm layer of gold prior to scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) observations.
Thermogravimetric experiments
Thermal stability experiments were performed using
TA instrument (TGA Q500) at a heading rate of
10 K/min, from 25 C to 600 C under air atmosphere.
Samples of about 6 mg were used.
Results and discussion
Crystalline structure of PP and PP/HF composites
Figure 1 shows the wide angle X-ray diffraction pat-
terns of PP, HFs, and their composites. The peaks at
13.8 , 16.6 , and 18.3 corresponding to the (110),
(040), and (130) diffraction planes of the a-form PP
crystal were visible both in virgin PP and its compos-
ites. The characteristic peak of b-form PP crystal at
15.8 due to (300) crystal plane was also observed in
the XRD patterns of PP/HF composites. This phenom-
enon demonstrated that the incorporation of HFs
induced the formation of b-form crystal structure in
PP matrix. In addition, with the incorporation of
PP–MAH, the two forms of crystals still existed in
the composites. The relative amount of the b-form
crystals (K) was determined by the ratio between the
intensity Ib of the peak for the (300) diffraction plane
and the sum of the intensity Ia1, Ia2, and Ia3 of the
(110), (040), and (130) diffraction planes as well as Ib
of the peak for the (300) diffraction plane. It can be
formulated as follows:
I
K¼ : ð1Þ
I1 þ I2 þ I3 þ I
The calculated K-values were 27% and 19% for PP/
HF (70/30) and PP/HF/PP–MAH (70/30/5), respec-
tively. The lower K-values implied that the addition
of PP–MAH significantly decreases the b-form crystal
content in the composite. These results are consistent
with literature.14
Dynamic mechanical analysis
The temperature-dependent dynamic mechanical char-
acteristics provide an insight into the level of interac-
tions between the polymer matrix and the fiber
reinforcement. Figure 2 shows storage modulus of PP
and its composites as a function of temperature. The
fiber loading was maintained at 30 wt%. The PP–MAH
content was 5 phr and the content of SEBS–MAH (or
POE–MAH) was 6 phr. The storage modulus of the
composites was higher compared to PP throughout
the whole temperature range. As expected, the incorpo-
ration of POE–MAH, SEBS–MAH or PP–MAH
increased the storage modulus of the composites. This
may be due to the enhancement of interfacial adhesion
between the fiber and polymer matrix. Additionally, the
composite containing PP–MAH had the highest storage
modulus.

(1) HFs 7000

(2) PP
6000 (5)
300 (3) PP/HF (70/30) (4)
Storage modulus (MPa)

(4) PP/HF/PP–MAH (70/30/5) 5000 (3)

Relative intensity

(4)
300 4000 (2)

3000
(3) (1)
040 2000 (1) PP
110 130
(2) (2) PP/HF (70/30)
1000 (3) PP/HF/POE–MAH (70/30/6)
002
101
101 0 (4) PP/HF/SEBS–MAH (70/30/6)
(1)
(4) PP/HF/PP–MAH (70/30/5)
–1000
–40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 40 50
10 20 30 40 Temperature (°C)
Diffraction angle (2q)

Figure 2. Storage modulus vs. temperature of PP and PP/HF

Figure 1. XRD patterns of HF, PP, and PP/HF composites. composites.
Niu et al. 39

Figure 3(a) and (b) shows the typical SEM micro-
graphs of fracture surfaces of PP/HF (70/30) and
PP/HF/PP–MAH (70/30/5) after izod impact testing
(notched). Long pulled-out fibers and the correspond-
ing holes were visible in unmodified composites
(Figure 3(a)). The surfaces of the pulled fibers were
relatively clean. In addition, there were gaps between
fibers and matrix. All these observations implied a poor
adhesion between fiber and matrix. The incorporation
of PP–MAH can significantly enhance the fiber/matrix
adhesion as indicated from Figure 3(b).
Mechanical properties of the unmodified and
PP-MAH compatilized composites
The tensile and flexural strengths of unmodified PP/HF
composites at different HFs loadings are shown in
Figure 4. The composites exhibited a significant
promotion in flexural strength but a slight reduction
in tensile strength compared to PP. This may be due
to the high mechanical properties of HFs15 but poor
interfacial adhesion between the fibers and matrix
(Figure 3(a)).
Figure 5 shows the evolution of tensile and flexural
strengths with the content of PP–MAH. The HFs load-
ing was maintained at 30 wt% and the PP–MAH con-
tent in the composites varied from 0 to 10 phr. It can be
seen from Figure 5 that when more than 3 phr PP–MAH
was added to the composites, as expected, the tensile and
flexural strengths were significantly improved. For
example, the tensile and flexural strengths of the com-
posite comprising 5 phr PP–MAH increased by 32% and
24%, respectively, compared to unmodified system.
It was associated with the enhanced fiber/matrix inter-
facial adhesion (Figure 3(b)) which resulted in an
improvement of stress transfer from the PP matrix to
HFs. However, it is worth noting that the tensile and
flexural strengths of the composite did not simply
increase with the increase of PP–MAH content but a
maximum was observed after adding 5 phr PP–MAH
to the composites. Mutjé et al. has shown the same
tendency for PP/HF composites.

Figure 3. SEM micrographs of PP/HF composites: (a) PP/HF (70/30) and (b) PP/HF/PP–MAH (70/30/5).

70 90
Tensile and flexural strength (MPa)

Tensile and flexural strength (MPa)

Tensile strength Tensile strength

60 80
Flexural strength Flexural strength
70
50
60
40 50

30 40
30
20
20
10
10
0 0
PP 10 20 30 PP 0 2 4 6 8 10
Fiber content (wt%) PP–MAH content (phr)

Figure 4. Tensile and flexural strengths vs. fiber content of PP Figure 5. Tensile and flexural strengths vs. PP–MAH content of
and PP/HF composites. PP and PP/HF (70/30) composites.
40 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 30(1)

Figure 6 shows the impact strengths of PP and

20
Notched impact strength its composites. In fact, PP did not fracture during
18
Unnotched impact strength the unnotched impact test and in consequence the
Impact strength (kJ/m2)

16
unnotched impact strength of PP was not present in
14
this article. The HFs loading was maintained at
12
30 wt% and the PP–MAH content in the composites
10
was 5 phr. Impact strengths of the composites decreased
8
extremely with the incorporation of HFs. Furthermore,
6 PP–MAH induced a further decrease of impact
4 strengths of PP. This is consistent with literature.16,17
2
0
PP PP/HF PP/HF/PP–MAH Impact strength of the elastomer modified
(70/30) (70/30/5) composites
It has been proved that elastomer (both synthetic and
Figure 6. Impact strengths of PP and PP/HF composites.
natural) can be used to improve the impact properties
of the fiber reinforced composites.12 Figure 7 shows the
typical load–displacement curves of PP and its compos-
ites. Due to the restrictions of fiber on the polymer
2500 matrix motility, the incorporation of HFs resulted in
(5) (2) (1)
drastic reduction in elongation at break of PP.
2000 Additionally, PP–MAH induced a further decrease of
elongation at break. In contrary, the presence of SEBS–
1500 MAH and POE–MAH elastomer increased the elonga-
Load (N)

(4) (3)
0 5 10 15 tion at break by 51% (PP/HF/SEBS–MAH (70/30/6))
1000
(1) PP
and 120% (PP/HF/POE-MAH (70/30/6)), respectively,
(2) PP/HF (70/30) compared to unmodified composites.
500
(3) PP/HF/POE–MAH (70/30/6) The notched and unnotched impact strengths of
(4) PP/HF/SEBS–MAH (70/30/6) composites at various contents of POE–MAH or
0 (5) PP/HF/PP–MAH (70/30/5)
SEBS–MAH are shown in Figure 8(a) and (b), respec-
0 20 40 60 80 100 tively. The HFs loading was maintained at 30 wt%
Displacement (mm) and the elastomer content varied from 0 to 15 phr.
In general, the impact strengths of the composites had
Figure 7. Load vs. displacement curves for PP and PP/HF a significant improvement with the addition of elasto-
composites. mer. In the case of PP/HF/POE–MAH (70/30/6), the

(a) 8 (b) 40
POE–MAH POE–MAH
Unnotched impact strength (kJ/m2)

7 SEBS–MAH 35 SEBS–MAH
Notched impact strength (kJ/m2)

6 30

5 25

4 20

3 15

2 10

1 5

0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 0 3 6 9 12 15
Elastomer content (phr) Elastomer content (phr)

Figure 8. Impact strengths vs. elastomer content of PP/HF (70/30) composites: (a) notched impact strength and (b) unnotched
impact strength.
Niu et al. 41

addition of POE–MAH induced an increase of both
notched and unnotched impact strengths of the com-
posite by 32% and 68%, respectively, compared to
unmodified system. Additionally, the impact strengths
(both notched and unnotched impact strengths) of the
composites comprising POE–MAH was obviously
higher than that of SEBS–MAH modified system.
The increases in impact strengths and elongation at
break of the composites containing elastomer are
attributed to the high toughness and high extendability
without a permanent deformation of elastomer.
SEM examination of fracture surfaces of impact spe-
cimens provides valuable information on the toughness
of the sample. It is apparent that the surfaces of PP/HF
(70/30) and PP/HF/PP–MAH (70/30/5) were relatively
flat (Figure 4(a) and (b)) indicating that the samples
experienced little plastic deformation and little energy
was dissipated during the impact testing process.
In contrast, from Figure 9(a) and (b), rougher surface
appearance and numerous micro voids were observed
in the micrographs of PP/HF/SEBS–MAH (70/30/6)
and PP/HF/POE–MAH (70/30/6). This resulted from
the debonding and pulled-out of the elastomer parti-
cles from the PP matrix and brought about a large
amount of energy dissipation during the impact tests.
Consequently, the impact toughness of SEBS–MAH
and POE–MAH modified composites was higher than
that of composites without elastomer.
However, from Figure 7, it is worth noting that
PP–MAH compatilized composite had higher yield
strengths but had lower impact strengths and elonga-
tion at break, while the composites containing SEBS–
MAH and POE–MAH elastomer had higher impact
strengths and elongation at break but unsatisfactory

Figure 9. SEM micrographs of PP/HF composites: (a) PP/HF/SEBS–MAH (70/30/6) and (b) P/HF/POE–MAH (70/30/6).

(a) 60 (b) 90
POE–MAH POE–MAH
80 SEBS–MAH
50 SEBS–MAH
70
Tensile strength (MPa)

Flexural strength (MPa)

40 60
50
30
40
20 30
20
10
10
0 0
PP/HF 0 3 6 9 PP/HF 0 3 6 9
(70/30) (70/30)
Elastomer content (phr) Elastomer content (phr)

Figure 10. Tensile and flexural strength vs. elastomer content of PP/HF/PP–MAH (70/30/5) composites: (a) tensile and (b) flexural
strengths.
42 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 30(1)

yield strengths compared to unmodified system. Hence, compatilized composites reduced slightly with the
to optimize the mechanical properties of the compos- increasing of elastomer content (Figure 10).
ites, the combination of PP–MAH and elastomer may Nevertheless, they were still higher than those of unmo-
be used. dified system. The variation in impact strengths of the
composites is shown in Figure 11. The addition of elas-
Mechanical properties of the composites modified tomer induced a remarkable increase of the impact
strength (both notched and unnotched impact strength)
by the combination of PP-MAH and elastomer of the PP–MAH compatilized composite.
The effect of elastomer content on the mechanical prop- As a result, the combination of PP–MAH and elas-
erties of PP–MAH compatilized composites is shown in tomer can be used to optimize the mechanical proper-
Figures 10 and 11. The fiber loading in the composites ties of PP/HF composites. Take the composite
was maintained at 30 wt%. The PP–MAH content was comprising PP–MAH (5 phr) and POE–MAH (6 phr)
5 phr and the elastomer content varied from 0 to 9 phr. for example, the tensile strength, flexural strength,
The tensile and flexural strengths of PP–MAH notched and unnotched impact strengths of the

(a) 8 (b) 40
POE–MAH POE–MAH
7 Unnotched impact strength (kJ/m2)
Notched impact strength (kJ/m2)

SEBS–MAH SEBS–MAH

6 30

4 20

2 10

0 0
PP/HF 0 3 6 9 PP/HF 0 3 6 9
(70/30) (70/30)
Elastomer content (phr) Elastomer content (phr)

Figure 11. Impact strengths vs. elastomer content of PP/HF/PP–MAH (70/30/5) composites: (a) notched and (b) unnotched impact
strengths.

(a) (b)
100 (1) HFs
(2) PP
(3) PP/HF (70/30)
Deriv. weight (wt%/°C)

80
(2)
Weight (%)

60 (1)
(3)

(2)
40
(1)
(3)
(1) HFs
20
(2) PP
(3) PP/HF (70/30)
0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)

Figure 12. TGA and DTG curves of HFs, PP, and PP/HF (70/30) composite under air atmosphere: (a)TGA and (b) DTG curves.
Niu et al.
composite increased by 22%, 8%, 24%, and 82%,
respectively, compared to unmodified system.
Thermal degradation analysis
Thermogravimetric curves under air atmosphere of
HFs, PP, and PP/HF (70/30) are shown in Figure 12.
The fiber filled composite started degradation later than
HFs and began to degrade almost simultaneously with
PP matrix. In the DTG curves, the maximum degrada-
tion rate of the composite was shifted to higher temper-
ature with respect to cellulose (decomposed at about
337 C) and virgin PP (Tdeg ¼ 338 C). The peak degra-
dation rates of PP/HF (70/30) were observed at tem-
peratures 360 and 380 C, respectively. The reason for
the higher maximum degradation temperature of the
composite compared to PP and HFs is still under
research.
Conclusions
In this study, the mechanical properties and thermal
stability of PP/HF composites were examined. The
incorporation of HFs induced the formation of
b-form crystal structure in PP matrix. Various compa-
tilizer (PP–MAH, SEBS–MAH, and POE–MAH) were
used to improve the fiber/matrix interactions. All com-
posites containing compatilizer showed higher storage
modulus and higher interfacial adhesion between fiber
and matrix with respect to unmodified composites. The
addition of PP–MAH increased the tensile and flexural
strengths, whereas the incorporation of SEBS–MAH
and POE–MAH elastomer caused a remarkable
improvement in impact strength and elongation at
break of the composites. The combination of
PP–MAH and SEBS–MAH (POE–MAH) elastomer
can be used to optimize the mechanical properties of
PP/HF composites. The tensile strength, flexural
strength, notched and unnotched impact strengths of
the composite comprising PP–MAH (5 phr) and
POE–MAH (6 phr) increased by 22%, 8%, 24%, and
82%, respectively, compared to unmodified system.
In addition, PP/HF composite shows better thermal
stability compared with fiber and matrix separately.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the Quartermaster Equipment
Institute of the People’s Liberation Army General Logistics
Department for hemp fiber provision.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
43
References
1. Yu HN, Kim SS, Hwang IU and Lee DG. Application
of natural fiber reinforced composites to trenchless reha-
bilitation of underground pipes. Compos Struct 2008;
86(1–3): 285–290.
2. Lee HS, Cho D and Han SOS. Effect of natural fiber
surface treatments on the interfacial and mechanical
properties of henequen/polypropylene biocomposites.
Macromol Res 2008; 16(5): 411–417.
3. Bledzki AK, Reihmane S and Gassan J. Properties and
modification methods for vegetable fibers for natural
fiber composites. J Appl Polym Sci 1996; 59(8):
1329–1336.
4. Hai NM, Kim BS and Lee S. Effect of NaOH treatments
on jute and coir fiber PP composites. Adv Compos Mater
2009; 18(3): 197–208.
5. Rahman SMMA, Mustafa AI and Khan MA. Jute rein-
forced polypropylene composite: effect of surface pre-
treatment by photocuring with acrylic monomers.
J Reinf Plast Comp 2009; 28(14): 1733–1745.
6. Kushwaha PK and Kumar R. Studies on water absorp-
tion of bamboo-epoxy composites: effect of silane treat-
ment of mercerized bamboo. J Appl Polym Sci 2010;
115(3): 1846–1852.
7. Mechraoui A, Riedl B and Rodrigue D. The effect of
fibre and coupling agent content on the mechanical prop-
erties of hemp/polypropylene composites. Compos
Interface 2007; 14(7–9): 837–848.
8. Tasdemlr M, Biltekin H and Caneba GT. Preparation
and characterization of LDPE and PP-wood fiber com-
posites. J Appl Polym Sci 2009; 112(5): 3095–3102.
9. Khoathane MC, Vorster OC and Sadiku ER. Hemp fiber
reinforced 1-pentene/polypropylene copolymer: the effect
of fiber loading on the mechanical and thermal charac-
teristics of the composites. J Reinf Plast Comp 2008;
27(14): 1533–1544.
10. Elsabbagh A, Steuernagel A and Ziegmann G. Effect of
fiber/matrix chemical modification on the mechanical
properties and water absorption of extruded flax/poly-
propylene composites. J Appl Polym Sci 2008; 111(5):
2279–2289.
11. Ruksakulpiwat Y, Sridee J, Suppakarn N and Sutapun
W. Improvement of impact property of natural fiber-
polypropylene composites by using natural rubber and
EPDM rubber. Compos Part B-Eng 2009; 40(7): 619–622.
12. Guo CG and Wang QW. Effect of maleic anhydride
grafted styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (MA–SEBS)
on impact fracture behavior of polypropylene/wood
fiber. J Forestry Res 2007; 18(3): 203–207.
13. Rosas JM, Bedia J and Rodriguez-Mirasol J. and
Cordero T. Hemp derived activated carbon fibers by
chemical activation with phosphoric acid. Fuel 2009;
88(1): 19–26.
14. Xie XL, Fung KL, Li RKY, Tjong SC and Mai YW.
Structural and mechanical behavior of polypropylene/
maleated-styrene-(ethylene-co-butylene)-styrene/sisal
fiber composites prepared by injection molding. J Polym
Sci Pol Phys 2002; 40(12): 1214–1222.
44
15. Pracella M, Chionna D, Anguillesi I, Kulinski Z and
Piorkowska E. Functionalization, compatibilization and
properties of polypropylene composites with hemp fibres.
Compos Sci Technol 2006; 66(13): 2218–2230.
16. Canché-Escamilla G, Rodriguze-Laviada J, Cauich-
Cupul JI, Mendizábal E, Puig JE and Herrera-Franco
PJ. Flexural, impact and compressive properties of a
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 30(1)
rigid-thermoplastic matrix/cellulose fiber reinforced com-
posites. Compos Part A-Appl S 2002; 33(4): 539–549.
17. Mieck KP, Reubmann T and Lützkendort R.
Calculations and experiments for impact strength of nat-
ural long-fiber reinforced composites. Adv Eng Mater
2004; 6(3): 144–147.